Is There Proof That God Exists?

[HIGHLYTOXIC]

whats the proof of existence of god?How can anyone believe?

 

[Turtle]

There is no proof of God, and people believe because human minds are capable of doing such.

 

[Royce]

God can not be proven. No one can prove to you or anyone else that God does or does not exist. We experience God within ourselves and know God and know that he exists. It is beyond belief and beyond what is normally thought of as faith. Once God is experienced within ourselves there is no longer any need for proof.
The way this has happened to a number of us is through meditation and acceptance and asking while meditating.

 

[Valeri]

god "existence" is dangerous

How can you trust your feelings, that "god" exists?
Generally speaking, human feelings can "cheat", right?
Say, you could had been "drugged" when you experienced "a connection with the god", isn't it so?

PREVIOUSLY people "needed" a god in order to survive (just "to keep together"), that is it.
For NOW people DO NOT NEED god.
Moreover, "idea of god" is DANGEROUS for human race.

Because of "whose god is better" arguing
(which cannot be solved because is based on irrational "feelings")
our poor mankind can commit suicide using NEWLY introduced weapons of mass destruction.

So, even IF "a god" exists, people MUST "prove" to themselves, that no any god exists and QUICKLY!

P.S.
"Morality" CAN be explained without references to any god, do you know that?

 

[meteor]

I used to believe in the existence of a creator until a week or so. Not the God of the Bible, the Allah of Koran, Yaveh or other name that you please, but some kind of mad scientist that is experimenting with our universe. Of course that I didn't believe in life after death, reencarnation or other histories. But then I thought: if there's a creator, who created him/her? Another creator evidently. And to this creator? Another. And so indefinitely. For me, this infinite ladder of creators is absurd, so I prefer to believe that there's no creator

 

[goo]

if there's no god, he would have to be invented

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by HIGHLYTOXIC
whats the proof of existence of god?How can anyone believe?

Why do you need proof? He either is or He isn't. If He is then we should inherently know this. But then again if we don't, perhaps it's because we've taken someone else's word for it? Hmm ... Hey, don't look at me man!

 

[EvilPoet]

I thought these links might be of interest ...

Arguments for the Existence of God

Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible?

 

[photon]

The "infinite ladder" that meteor posted is no more absurd than the infinite ladder that created matter and life.
If you call the idea of God absurd, you're pretty much calling the idea of the Big Bang, ect. absurd also.

Despite what most people think, it is actually possible for God, the Big Bang, and Evolution to all coexist.

 

[Royce]

Well put photon.

If proof is still needed, the fact that you exist and can ask; "Does God exist?" should be proof enough. Taken back as far as you want or to whatever level you want the universe is so ordered and its properties so exact, the chain of events that led to first life and then us much less the existence of the universe as it is so improbable that it seems to demand a logical reasoning mind beyond our comprehention to make it happen just the way it is and keep it just the way it is so that life at least on Earth can flourish. It is all too perfect, too exact, too improbable to be an accident or to happen by chance alone. God is. By whatever name you want to call him or however you want to conceptulize the creator and maintainer of the universe or the universe itself, it is. It is God.

 

[FZ+]

I would have thought that most religions name chance as God.

In either case, I think you underestimate chance's abilities... And left out the reason why - why do you think it all had to turn out this way?

 

[EvilPoet]

"What really interests me is whether God could have created the world any
differently; in other words, whether the demand for logical simplicity leaves
any freedom at all." -Albert Einstein

 

[Bariyon]

Hang on, before we talk about the existence of "god", we had better define "god".

Otherwise we are guilty of setting up the proverbial straw man.

So it is necessary to read the bible and work out what the prophets are meaning when they use the word "god".

Do not undersetimate the craftiness of the prophets.

A little piece of advice - if you are reading the bible and it is making no sense, then perhaps you are holding the book upside down. If you conclude that the bible is stupid, then maybe it is acting as a mirror on you.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+
I would have thought that most religions name chance as God.

In either case, I think you underestimate chance's abilities... And left out the reason why - why do you think it all had to turn out this way?

Late night I watched NOVA on a PBS channel. The program was The Elegant Universe. Brian Greene, the author of the book of the same title and host for NOVA said that ther are about 16(?) numbers that are critical. If anyone of them changed value even minutely the universe would no longer exist as we know and love it. The value of these parameters are exactly the value that they need to be in order for the universe to exist as it it. If that is not enought then how many events had to happen just the way that they did when they did for life to emerge in the universe.
Then multiply those astronmomical odds agains life on Earth developing into intelligent self aware beings, us; and, it is thought that we as a species nearly went extinct. At one time it is estimated that our population was down to less than 10,000 worldwide.
No I am not underestimating the power of chance. I realize that given an infinite amount of time and and infinite amoiut of space anything and everything possible however remote or unlikely will happen. However according to the BB and a number of physicists the universe is not infinite but finite in both space and time.
It is all but impossible to realize how unlikely and event that the universe is much less how unlikely you and I are. How precise the parameters have to be for the universe to come about in the first place and then maintain and evolve itself into its present state.
Sure its possoble but it is far more likely as impossible as it may seem to some that the laws and parameters and universe were created
by a supermind some call God.
Why? I don't know unless it was to experience itself and evolve itself and to be aware of itself.
It has been said that the material universe was created so that newly created souls would have a place to stand and live and grow. But then why were the souls created? Maybe it is its way to procreate or evolve itself as I said.

 

[Bariyon]

You are defining your own god, then going into lengthy discussion about whether this god exists or not.

Can you not see that you are making a big ERROR?

You are still assuming that god is some kind of universal intelligence.

This is not the god of the bible.

If you want to find out about the god of the bible, then read the bible. This may take some effort. If you don't have the time, then keep on making up your own definitions and speculating on their validity. But I will not participate in such FOOLISHNESS.

 

[Royce]

Bariyon, I disagree that God is not the universal conscious or ultimate super mind. It is the God of the bible but beyound the bible and viewed a different way. It is just another facet of the One God of which we are all part of and of which he is.
My views are based on my Judeo-Christian upbringing and my study of mainly Buddhism and Zen. It is not so much that I am defining my own God as my God is defining himself to me in his many different aspects.
This is a result of many years of meditation and study. Either that or I am far mor psychotic and deluded than I think that I am. I am not the only one who has seen these things nor am I the only one to have said or written them. I am therefore not alone in my psychosis or delusion or in the truth and reality if that is what it is.
It is foolish to call someone else's opinion or view foolish simply because they don't coincide with yours.

 

[Bariyon]

Royce,
I think I am making the same point that you have already made.
God is not something that is separate from us. If we think that god is some sort of objectively separate entity, then we are misleading ourselves from the outset.
Yet in another sense, I see no reason why god cannot be described by a physics theory. It's just that a theory of god and the experience of god are two quite different things.
So this would be a proof of god, that is, the nature of reality that lies beyond our everyday experience.

 

[Royce]

Bariyon,
It is my understanding that for God to be described by a physics experiment, God would have to objective. While it is not impossible for God to manifest himself as objective, God is usually concidered outside of spacetime and therefore neither objective or subjective but spiritual (for want of a better word).
As such there is no possible objective proof of God. This is the prime reason that science does not and can not address the question of God's existence or non existence. God is not within the realm of
science, so God cannot be either proved or disproved or strictly speaking even spoken or written about in any scientific way.

(Yet, when the subject of God is brought up many objective materialist immediately bring science into the picture and say that there is no evidence.)[?] [?] [?] [?] [?]

 

[Bariyon]

Royce,

A "theory of god" may not be as sensational as it sounds. It may simply be an extension of our present theory. I am not talking about going outside space time - this is speculation. And why shouldn't this extended reality be objective, even if it lies outside our everyday experience at the moment?

According to my understanding, matter is presently caught in a state of incompleteness. We do not know what lies beyond our present incomplete reality, and our incomplete reality is even reflected in our theory.

A new theory that describes the fullness of reality would be the same as demonstrating the existence of god, as we usually say according to our poetic thinking. But there is a big difference between having a new theory on paper, and living in the extended reality that it describes.

I see no real reason why we shouldn't be able to use experiment to demonstrate god. However I would think that the best way to demonstrate god would be via meditation. After all, meditation is just a special type of experiment on matter, namely ourselves.

You may argue that it is impossible for anyone to develop an extended theory without actually experiencing the extended reality first. I would argue that the power of mathematics allows us to develop theory that actually goes beyond our experience.

This new theory is unlikely to be developed by a scholar. After all, they've had enough time to do so, using their methods, and I'm sorry to say that they haven't had much success. Its development may be a more subtle process. It may represent a final coming together of science and spirituality.

 

[Royce]

Bariyon,
I agree with you but there are many who would not. In my opinion I/we already have ample proof of the existence of God in our everyday lives and all around us. Meditation can and often does support this beyound our everyday experience. It is in fact why I know that God is and is a part of us as we of him. I am, however, a believer.

There are those who will not accept any evidence that God exists and deny and evidence that he does. The thinking that QM may show the hand of God is ridiculed and rejected out of hand. Those who do not believe will go to any length to try to disprove and evidence and even make up "scientific" reasons to dispute any evidence that such exists.

Even if we ever do find indisputable objective evidence of the hand or mind of God it will be rejected and ridiculed by some. Jesus would be in just as much if not more danger if he came back to Earth today and announced himself as he was the first time. As the bible says there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Zaphod]

Originally posted by photon
Despite what most people think, it is actually possible for God, the Big Bang, and Evolution to all coexist.

So, in that case, what begot what, in your opinion? Did God exist before the big-bang, or would you say he was created WITH the big bang? Somehow the notion of God being created after the big bang doesn't sound too strong( which can be said pretty much about my entire post). But then again, I just want to hear a few opinions on this regard.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Some theists go like this: God has always existed - he can do that because he has all these infinite attributes. Matter and energy can't do that because they are finitistic and obey causality. Then the big bang is identified (somewhat naively) with God creating the universe. God is behind all the actions of this world, but His hand is hidden, because, to support our free will He doesn't want us to be just puppets. That's okay because "all things are possible with God", so everything, including evolution is both completely causal and completely God's will. You're not going to be able to reduce all that logically, and the atheists are driven to giggles by it, but theists don't care.

 

[FZ+]

The value of these parameters are exactly the value that they need to be in order for the universe to exist as it it. etc etc

The question I am raising here is...

What is so great about that?

The key issue here is the conversion of rarity to specialness. No one denies that probability-wise, for things to have turned out the way it has is pretty rare. But what I don't really agree with is the idea of specialness - that the probabilities have any significance as a real dartboard the cosmic player is trying to hit. I am saying that we are drawing the bullseye after the dart has hit.

And guess what? It's a direct hit. As I have said before, the one fuzziness on which the design argument lives or dies is the idea of purpose. If we conclude things have a purpose, then it seems pretty conclusive the way this purpose is met. But if we did not, then we can only find significance relative to us - and so we can feel fortunate, but that fortune is not the fortune of the universe.

I did not get run over by a car today. Before I state that this is a case of a conscious fate, I must show that it actually matters to anything but me and maybe people who know me.

However according to the BB and a number of physicists the universe is not infinite but finite in both space and time.

Actually, I'll expect this to be leading on to a discussion of the anthropic principle, which has a number of solutions.

1. Multiple universes. This is allowed by many theories, like Everett's Many Worlds hypothesis, M-theory and so on. If multiple universes exist, it seems certain that something like this would develop.

2. Participatory universe models. This focuses on some physical significance to awareness, concluding that until observation, the universe was not real, so inevitably the ghost universe that eventually gained reality is the one where we live.

3. Infinite space/time universes. There is definitely no clear consensus on this. Even BB offers little but speculation on what occurred before the inflation stage of the universe.

 

[Bariyon]

Royce et al,

I don't see that there is anything special about god that cannot be understood by us or described by mathematical theory.

At the moment we are able to experience god via meditation etc, but it still leaves us a little mystified - it is beyond our everyday experience.

Perhaps some time in the distant future mankind will have an understanding of the reality that presently lies beyond our experience, and will know god.

But at the moment we are still at the evolutionary stage of developing this understanding. So at the moment we are making statements such as "god does not exist" or "god exists but cannot be objective".

Therefore I will make the statement "a theory of god is simply a matter of time, and from there it is simply a matter of time until god is part of our everyday experience."

 

[FZ+]

Wait wait, Bariyon...

Let me get you right...

Your concept of god is that of an ultimate reality, a perfect reality, a sort of analogue of Plato's universe of Forms that underlies existence... right?

 

[Iacchus32]

Is it possible for the Universe to exist without a "spiritual essence" or a motive? ... Well, certainly not in terms of what "we humans" experience anyway.

 

[Bariyon]

FZ+,

I am talking about god as being a more complete reality than we are presently aware of. Or in another sense, god is what we have left out of the full picture.

We are getting into the difficult area of defining the unknown.

So I would actually prefer to keep the word undefined, since we all have our own views on what it may mean.

Sorry if this is not being very rigorous.

The way I understand things, Plato was talking about the world of thought rather than the material world. Certainly we do not have a full understanding of consciousness.

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Royce
We experience God within ourselves and know God and know that he exists. It is beyond belief and beyond what is normally thought of as faith. Once God is experienced within ourselves there is no longer any need for proof.

In that case, this is the only occasion when unverified subjective experience of something justifies its belief. Why does this not apply to madmen who 'know' they are John the Baptist? Or to cultists who 'know' that they are communing with extraterrestrials? What is the justification for this special ruling? If the answer is of the 'Because God is special' form, then we have a circular argument (pulling itself up by its own diameter).

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by photon
The "infinite ladder" that meteor posted is no more absurd than the infinite ladder that created matter and life.
If you call the idea of God absurd, you're pretty much calling the idea of the Big Bang, ect. absurd also.

No. He is showing that the creator concept is extraneous and solves nothing. If we can speculate about an always-existent, self-creating or outside-of-the-normal-laws-of-cause-and-effect God, why not miss him out altogether and consider that reality itself may have these very properties?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
In that case, this is the only occasion when unverified subjective experience of something justifies its belief.

In a very real sense every subjective experience is unverified and everything that we experience in life is subjective as it is all mental perceptions of what our senses send to our brain. God is no different with the exception that the experience is somehow beyound perception but direct contact with our being or mind if you prefer.
It, the experience is not linear but a complete concept all at once.

Why does this not apply to madmen who 'know' they are John the Baptist? Or to cultists who 'know' that they are communing with extraterrestrials? What is the justification for this special ruling? If the answer is of the 'Because God is special' form, then we have a circular argument (pulling itself up by its own diameter).

Since our individual reality is totally subjective perception then for them it is their reality. I presume that it is no less real for them than the reality that I perceive is real to me.
Again the thing that make it special or different or distinguishable from our other perceptions is that it a complete conceptual perception of direct input rather than linear sensory input. I know that this is vague but it is the best that I can do to describe the experience to one who has not experienced it.

No. He is showing that the creator concept is extraneous and solves nothing. If we can speculate about an always-existent, self-creating or outside-of-the-normal-laws-of-cause-and-effect God, why not miss him out altogether and consider that reality itself may have these very properties?

Because it is not possible to separate God from reality. Reality has those properties because God is the ultimate reality and all that reality is, is of God. There is only one reality. It has different aspects but it is still one and thus ultimate and it is real.

God is not special, nor is God a special reality apart from our reality. God is. God is all. God is all that there is and all that is is God. There is a Buddhist saying that if everything is sacred then nothing is sacred. Substitute the word special and it is still valid.
It is the thinking that we are seperate, apart from God that causes us to think of God a special or as scientifically or logically unnecessary. The absurdity of this thinking is that we are not separate or apart from God but a part of God.
If you can't or won't buy that then think of it as the universe, a conscious universe with will and purpose. The universe is all that is. We are a part of the universe and the universe is us. There is nothing outside of the universe and the universe is the untimate one and only reality. There is only one X and all is one X. Substitute the word that you can best live with, God, Reality, Universe or make one up yourself. God/universe doesn't care. Your perception or belief of what reality is or is not changes nothing. What is, is.

 

[FZ+]

If you can't or won't buy that then think of it as the universe, a conscious universe with will and purpose.

Actually, I think you can interpret it as objecting with this bit. That it is extraneous to state the universe is god by being conscious and willful.

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Royce
In a very real sense every subjective experience is unverified and everything that we experience in life is subjective as it is all mental perceptions of what our senses send to our brain. God is no different with the exception that the experience is somehow beyound perception but direct contact with our being or mind if you prefer.
It, the experience is not linear but a complete concept all at once.

Now you're branching off into philosophical Idealism. One problem with idealism is that investigation of reality reveals consistent and apparently physical causes for my mental states - the pathways of my senses and nervous system can be traced with precision and if I alter the the chemistry of my brain it will have a direct effect on my perception of reality. If 'everything is subjective' and thus the physical is caused by the mind, then why is the causality working the wrong way? Is it a conspiracy of some sort? For what purpose? Does this philosophy really have any explanatory power?

Another problem is that if Idealism is true, I should be able to control reality by changing my mental state (aka 'magic'). I can't.

A third problem is that if Idealism is true I can make it false just by disbelieving in it. There I just did! Checkmate!

Originally posted by Royce

Since our individual reality is totally subjective perception then for them it is their reality. I presume that it is no less real for them than the reality that I perceive is real to me.
Again the thing that make it special or different or distinguishable from our other perceptions is that it a complete conceptual perception of direct input rather than linear sensory input. I know that this is vague but it is the best that I can do to describe the experience to one who has not experienced it.

We are not normally privy to how our subjective states arise. What makes you think that you would really know if something was 'directly input' ?

Originally posted by Royce
Because it is not possible to separate God from reality. Reality has those properties because God is the ultimate reality and all that reality is, is of God. There is only one reality. It has different aspects but it is still one and thus ultimate and it is real.
God is not special, nor is God a special reality apart from our reality. God is. God is all. God is all that there is and all that is is God. There is a Buddhist saying that if everything is sacred then nothing is sacred. Substitute the word special and it is still valid.

Yes, but where does 'God' fit into this view of reality? Buddhists don't believe in God. Calling ultimate reality 'God' is just an excuse to bundle in unjustified beliefs such as omnibenevolence, the afterlife, judgement etc, in other words, to try to continue the old Judeo-Christian social-control memes. As Richard Dawkins puts it:

If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them?

Originally posted by Royce
It is the thinking that we are seperate, apart from God that causes us to think of God a special or as scientifically or logically unnecessary. The absurdity of this thinking is that we are not separate or apart from God but a part of God.

How can I think of myself as separate from 'God', when I don't have a belief in Gods? You're putting the cart before the deity.

Originally posted by Royce
If you can't or won't buy that then think of it as the universe, a conscious universe with will and purpose. The universe is all that is. We are a part of the universe and the universe is us. There is nothing outside of the universe and the universe is the untimate one and only reality. There is only one X and all is one X. Substitute the word that you can best live with, God, Reality, Universe or make one up yourself. God/universe doesn't care. Your perception or belief of what reality is or is not changes nothing. What is, is.

See above. Anyway there is no sign that the universe exhibits will or purpose except in small pockets called 'brains'. The rest of your comments about reality, I pretty much agree with.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Now you're branching off into philosophical Idealism. One problem with idealism is that investigation of reality reveals consistent and apparently physical causes for my mental states - the pathways of my senses and nervous system can be traced with precision and if I alter the the chemistry of my brain it will have a direct effect on my perception of reality. If 'everything is subjective' and thus the physical is caused by the mind, then why is the causality working the wrong way? Is it a conspiracy of some sort? For what purpose? Does this philosophy really have any explanatory power?

There is one reality. Reality has different aspects. It is all interactive. The reality the we perceive is of course effected by the chemistry in the brain as well as a number of other things. This does not change reality only our perception of it. While the physical is caused by The Mind, God, it is not our mind that is the cause.
The only way that we can know anything is through our perceptions whether it is spiritual, subjective or physical reality. Our perceptions do not change or cause reality.

Another problem is that if Idealism is true, I should be able to control reality by changing my mental state (aka 'magic'). I can't.

Meditation is often called and altered state of mind. It is more like changing the station on a radio. We see a different reality than we normally do. Again this is mostly passive. We are receivers.
We process the signals we receive by whatever method and form our perception of what we receive. We do not change reality with our perceptions. Our thoughts, will and intent can and do change the physical state of our bodies and through our physical bodies we can and do effect the physical world or reality.

A third problem is that if Idealism is true I can make it false just by disbelieving in it. There I just did! Checkmate!

Only in your own mind can you change you own perceptions of reality. By this example you prove that subjective thought and will can change your reality. You choose not to believe by an act of conscious will.
Thus your reality changed; but, only in your mind. That which is the reality of the universe outside of your mind did not change at all. You are not, outside of your own mind, a god. There is that which is greater than you and exist outside of and independant of you. You are, however, a part of the reality and a part of God as he and reality is a part of you.

We are not normally privy to how our subjective states arise. What makes you think that you would really know if something was 'directly input' ?

By meditation we can to a degree control our sugjective state. That is what meditation is. I know when I am dreaming. I know when I and receiving sensory input and when I am just imagining or thinking images in my mind. We also know when we intuite something or when we perceive a conceptual image in our mind. There is a difference and we can know that this perception did not come via the "normal" inpts.

Yes, but where does 'God' fit into this view of reality? Buddhists don't believe in God. Calling ultimate reality 'God' is just an excuse to bundle in unjustified beliefs such as omnibenevolence, the afterlife, judgement etc, in other words, to try to continue the old Judeo-Christian social-control memes. As Richard Dawkins puts it:

Buddhists may or may not bewlieve in a god. They do believe in an after life and spiritual being. They believe in the One of which we are all part. It is from the Buddhist teachings that I first read of this concept. Buddhist, some at least, also believe that this life on Earth is the illusion and the spiritual is the real but that it is all interconnected and interactive.

How can I think of myself as separate from 'God', when I don't have a belief in Gods? You're putting the cart before the deity.

Isn't not haveing a belief in God or gods as separate as we can get.
If you don't even acknowledge God's existence, you can not acknowledge being a part of God or him of you or his having any effect in your life. This does not change the reality of God only your perception or lack of it.

See above. Anyway there is no sign that the universe exhibits will or purpose except in small pockets called 'brains'. The rest of your comments about reality, I pretty much agree with.

How can you perceive that which you don't believe. The universe is ordered and logical. It and we exist despite the astronomical odds against it. Life exists and arose from non-life. Life evolves and here on Earth has reached the point where we exist despite astronomical odds against it. This to me is evidence of a mind of will and purpose.

One other point, reguardless of whether we believe in God or the Big Bang or both, the physical objective material universe that we know and love is the effect, not the cause. It is not all of reality. It is only a part of, an aspect of, the ultimate reality.

 

[phoenixthoth]

depends on what God is.

some people think that God is all that is. the author that thinks God is all that is also defines knowledge to mean that A knows B if A=B. the "argument" is that i can know about a cat but to know a cat i have to be a cat. thus, if God is all that is, then it's clear that God is omnipresent. also, being all that is, with this definition of knowingness, God knows everything and is omniscient. i don't see how omnipotence follows from this definition...

other people may start with an assumption about God being omnipresent which would entail, at least, that God is within all that is. but then, if there were something in "all that is" that God isn't a part of, God wouldn't be omnipresent; so God is all that is.

if God is all that is, then God exists if and only if "all that is" exists. in other words, if at least one thing exists, then God exists. however, if nothing exists, then, of course, God doesn't exist. it was an "if and only if" statement.

i don't think one will ever prove the existence of God from definition alone. something else is required, perhaps observation though people don't always take observation to constitute absolute proof due to it's possible (or assured) subjectivity. for example, the following statement is considered by the rules of logic to be "true": if x is an element of the empty set then x is a purple goat controlling my thoughts. in some sense, you might call vacuous truth kinda weak, but it's basically saying that if x doesn't exist then you can say anything you like about x. what I'm trying to say is that arguments based on definitions of God and logic alone don't prove God exists. i could construct a mathematical example where i define something and even discuss its properties but that doesn't even prove it mathematically exists, which is probably easier than proving that something really exists (unless you consider mathematical existence to imply existence).

all I've done above is say that if God is all that is then
God exists if and only if all that is exists.

if you accept that God is all that is and if you accept that at least one thing exists, well then it follows that God exists. if you don't accept that definition of God, it doesn't automatically follow that God doesn't exist.

let's take this in a different direction and consider a proof not based on definition and logic but observation. let's not even consider God, let's just say i claim to be either immortal or omnipotent. i don't think i can ever prove that i am either immortal or omnipotent, though i might convince you that i am even if all the evidence i give you is circumstantial. let's just take immortality. how can i prove to you that i am immortal? think about it. i can't. the only thing i can do for you is disprove the claim by dying. however, i may outlive you. that just means i outlived you, it doesn't mean i'll live forever. suppose i live for a googleplex years. that still doesn't prove i will always live. (however, i have heard that some scientists think a claim is true if it is consistent with reality so far. if that is the case, it's already true that i am immortal because that is something that is consistent with reality so far. the flaw with this conception is that even time-independent claims may be true one day and not true the next.) you can do something similar with omnipotence. i may be able to lift a billion tons of rock but then you can always ask if i can lift 1,000,000,001 tons. nothing i can do will prove i am omnipotent.

let's just say that i can prove i am omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, perfect, the first cause, and all that jazz (which i think is highly unlikely though i may be able to convince you of it). then how would i prove that i am the christian God or G-d or Allah or The Great Spirit or blah blah blah? (hope you can excuse the reference to religion.)

thus, both logic and observation will not prove God exists.

what would?

well, if you were omniscient, you would be able to know if i were God. too bad we're not omniscient...

i personally think the statement "God exists" is undecidable but i can't prove that it is.

however, at least in certain situations, there are statements which are on some level true though they cannot be proven to be true in finite time. so, and this is just my opinion, "God exists" is a true statement but there is not nor will there ever be universally acceptable proof. that is unless God makes us all omniscient. then we would by definition know if there was a God.

 

[Bariyon]

If we want to prove god, whatever that means, a simple first step is to develop our fundamental scientific theory. If we spent more time doing this and less time talking about it, we would begin to get places.

 

[phoenixthoth]

developing scientific theory would seem to be relevant if and only if there were any scientists trying to prove God exists.

developing science would seem to indicate or presume that God's existence is mysterious or non-obvious, which it may or may not be. but let's even say that some being claims to be God and shows itself to everyone "in the flesh." the above arguments in a previous post of mine show that even if a supposed God revealed itself to us, we would have a hard time proving that it is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, perfect, immortal, and all the jazz, unless it uses its omnipotence to give us omniscience which would then give us the ability to know if it is God.

btw, my guess is that psychology or some psychology-related science will be more relevant than a physical science if science will ever prove God exists. specifically, the psychology of consciousness and the "expansion of consciousness."

 

[Bariyon]

Pheonixthoth,

We seem to be invoking different definitions of god.

I do not adhere to the belief that god is some sort of superman. I know that idea is put forward in the bible, but my view is that if it is a helpful thought to some people, then I am not going to discredit it.

The point I was trying to make is that discussions of god can become futile, especially if we are talking about something before we have even worked out what it is.

So if we simply get on with the task of developing our understanding, particularly physics theory, then we will eventually realize that we have been on a path of discovering god, even if we don't acknowledge it now.

In this sense, the main objective of theoretical physics is the discovery of god. And it was the main objective of the prophets, the buddhist masters, etc.

I fully agree that if physics develops an understanding of god, then it will bring together physics and psychology, and perhaps change them both beyond recognition.

 

[phoenixthoth]

The point I was trying to make is that discussions of god can become futile, especially if we are talking about something before we have even worked out what it is.

perhaps such an endeavour is futile in general but it does work in geometry and set theory in which points and sets are not defined yet a seemingly productive discussion of them takes place without working out what they are. however, discussing the nature of sets and points doesn't and can't prove they exist.

 

[birdus]

I for one believe in the existence of the all powerful infinitely wise God. I look at the irreducible complexity of nature and the vast evidence of intelligent design and wonder how anyone could believe otherwise. However, proving his existence I think is impossible. One of the laws of the universe is trial by faith. We are put here on Earth to be tested like gold refined in the fire. They that overcome become as God, his agents creating a new universe in the next great epoch. How can you pass judgement on the creator without automatically forfeiting your own soul. How can I question the wisdom of God. If God destroy me what can I do. If God preserve me, then it is intirely at his mercy.
For the sceptics, how do you know what you know? What is proof? What is reality? All of science and math are founded on a set of assumptions. If those assumptions are not correct, then all of our theorizing and speculations will not hold.
He who thinks must believe!

 

[phoenixthoth]

this is argument 6 from
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

i think there is at least one person who uses each argument to "prove" God exists, actually. i love the perfection argument as well as the creative definition one.

how about a collection of "proofs" that God doesn't exist? i'll start the list off:
1. the arguments here: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm are all flawed.
2. therefore, God doesn't exist.

For the sceptics, how do know what you know? What is proof? What is reality?

do you mean skeptics of the statement "God exists" or "God doesn't exist?" your questions apply to both types of skeptics.

here's "proof" 3 from that site:

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

while this is obviously flawed, i think i can message it into a better argument (that still has flaws).:
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I-reloaded)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) X exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

however, this seems pretty silly depending on what X is, like if X is president bush's penis (though that may be his God).

if X is the universe, or perhaps more, all that is, then that may be better but attributing consciousness, omnipotence, and some other traits seem difficult to me with that definition.

 

[birdus]

If you made a thousand arguements for the nonexistence of God, how would you know that you have eliminated all possibilities. There may be one more argument yet unthought of that proves the existence of God. There is a list for the nonexistence of God argument equally long and equally founded on logical fallacies. The problem is that every argument begins with a premise, that is an assumption that a statement is true to reality. To make the assumption you must BELIEVE something is true. You here many people claim that such and such is a proven fact. But what is proof. Isn't proof just a statement that many people choose to believe. Then that in itself is the logical fallacy of mass appeal. Many people can believe something is true but it is not necessarily true. All reasoning begins with an assumption. We can choose to believe in God and reason from there, or we can choose not to believe in God and get an intirely different result. As for me, I choose to believe in God and begin reasoning from there.

 

[phoenixthoth]

all it takes (either for a proof or a disproof) is one argument not resting on unprovable assumptions and not making any definition that are arbitrary (not to mention possibly self-serving).

on that note, i wish both sides luck because the rules of inference and the belief that observation gives any insight into truth or reality are unprovable assumptions.

this:

how about a collection of "proofs" that God doesn't exist? i'll start the list off:
1. the arguments here: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm are all flawed.
2. therefore, God doesn't exist.

was a joke. this site is linked to by a sight with an atheism theme by a self-proclaimed athiest. i think that it is actually thought by some people that since all known arguments for the existence of God are flawed, then that constitutes proof that God does not exist.

 

[Wolf]

God

The only thing that has any remote prove of a "god" is that no
one can explain what happened if there is no god then what began
everything?science says that everything begins from something else
so what started it all?
the only thing that really proves some "god" may exist is that we exist

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by birdus
If you made a thousand arguements for the nonexistence of God, how would you know that you have eliminated all possibilities. There may be one more argument yet unthought of that proves the existence of God.

It is irrational to believe in things without justification. There may be arguments you've never heard for the existence of gravity elves. Does that mean that it is sane to believe in them, or even to regard the belief in them to be as valid as the lack of belief in them? No. The fact that there may be unknown arguments or evidence for God just means we cannot know for certainty that he does not exist. Having said that, I've yet to come across an intelligible or even a consistent definition of God, so I don't really understand what this thing/nonthing that supposedly exists outside of existence is claimed to be.

Originally posted by birdus
As for me, I choose to believe in God and begin reasoning from there.

This type of thought-bypassing manouvre is sometimes called 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. Yes, you are indeed free to believe whatever unchallenged nonsense you like.

 

[Wolf]

proof

"it is primitive to believe something exist or does not exist"
i do not remember who created that quote but if there is no proof
in something or against it then would the decision to believe or not believe be entirely up to you my view on it is all questionable but i have my reasons for it there is proof of things happening without an explanation before so this in a way does proof that a "higher" being is a posiablity.

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Wolf
The only thing that has any remote prove of a "god" is that no
one can explain what happened if there is no god then what began
everything?science says that everything begins from something else
so what started it all?
the only thing that really proves some "god" may exist is that we exist

Not that one again.

1. The principle of conservation of energy is a property of the universe - thus there is no reason to assume it applies before, after or outside the universe.
2. There was no time before the universe either. Time is a property of the universe. There was no moment when the universe did not exist, just as there was no time when you were waiting for your parents to conceive you.
3. Even if the universe did have to have a cause, why do you assume it was 'God'? Why that god? Why not a computer programmer in another dimension? Why not some cosmic natural event?
4. If everything has to have a cause, what was God's cause? And of course you will want to follow with some sort of 'God is special - he is not part of time, he encloses all of time, he always existed' argument to which I will respond:
a. How do you know what the properties of this thing are that you have yet to show the existence of?
b. If you can ascribe these qualities to god without logical contradiction, I can ascribe them to reality/the universe, after all, since time is an aspect of space-time which is a property of reality, I could argue that the universe 'is not within time' and 'encloses all of time' too.

 

[Wolf]

god is assumed to be for the fact that we have no other explanation if you where to go back to the time in which the story of god was created and you altered it then we would be having this same disscusion about whatever you changed it to in short i believe that there are "higher beings" but no god i believe in higher beings due to i have seen people running up walls or along them prooving for me that there is some beings that through proper traning can do more than an average being but god is though to exist because no one can prove else can you prove he does not exist?or can you prove he does no
some believe in god due to "when they pray they can feel his warm light around them" to this i reply how do you know that is just not your own hope increasing and through that hope you can achieve more than before

 

[Mumeishi]

god is assumed to be for the fact that we have no other explanation if you where to go back to the time in which the story of god was created and you altered it then we would be having this same disscusion about whatever you changed it to in short i believe that there are "higher beings"

In other words people invent (without justification) a blanket explanation for the gaps in their knowledge yet this explanation is mysterious in itself, thus ultimately explaining nothing. We used to believe that disease was caused by evil spirits - now we know better. God used to be a more immediate being who lived on Mt Sinai, then in the sky - he has moved further and further away until he has become nothing more than the started the causal chain going.

but no god i believe in higher beings due to i have seen people running up walls or along them prooving for me that there is some beings that through proper traning can do more than an average being but god is though to exist

Do you mean acrobats?

because no one can prove else can you prove he does not exist?or can you prove he does no

1. can you (or anyone ) define what this thing is that I'm supposed to disprove.

2. I never said that we are justified in knowing that God doesn't exist, only that belief is unjustified.

3. with all beliefs, we do not start by assuming existence and challenging others to disprove it. Can you give me any non-religious examples of this? If we went around believing in things just because we couldn't disprove them, we would have as many beliefs as we had thoughts - we would be like extreme schizophrenics.

The onus is on anyone making a positive claim to provide the evidence/argument, and then there is something there to be disproved. This applies to all issues, why should different rules apply here? (If you want to say 'cos God is special', see my previous post for the response.)

 

[phoenixthoth]

The only thing that has any remote prove of a "god" is that no
one can explain what happened if there is no god then what began
everything?science says that everything begins from something else
so what started it all?
the only thing that really proves some "god" may exist is that we exist

ah, the good ol' first cause argument.
1. there must be a first cause
2. therefore, there is a first cause
3. God is the first cause.

It is irrational to believe in things without justification. There may be arguments you've never heard for the existence of gravity elves. Does that mean that it is sane to believe in them, or even to regard the belief in them to be as valid as the lack of belief in them? No. The fact that there may be unknown arguments or evidence for God just means we cannot know for certainty that he does not exist. Having said that, I've yet to come across an intelligible or even a consistent definition of God, so I don't really understand what this thing/nonthing that supposedly exists outside of existence is claimed to be.

correct conclusions can sometimes be arrived at illogically. hence, i suppose, irrationally. therefore, the irrationality of an argument doesn't prove the conclusion is wrong, just illogical. this post redeems itself with the comment, "The fact that there may be unknown arguments or evidence for God just means we cannot know for certainty that he does not exist," which is what i would say. as for the intelligible/consistent definition of God, what about the following one: God is all that is? I'm not saying this is my definition; just wondering what you think.

This type of thought-bypassing manouvre is sometimes called 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. Yes, you are indeed free to believe whatever unchallenged nonsense you like.

i agree that assuming God exists and using that assumption to prove God exists is pretty flawed but i don't agree that the statement "God exists" is nonsense. but I'm going to make my own definition of what is nonsense and go from there. ;)

oh, just noticed Mumeishi already dispensed with the first cause argument. kudos to Mumeishi. also like the idea of the burden of proof resting with those making the claim. and since you used the word "positive," the same doesn't apply to those making the claim "God does not exist." i think that the burden of proof rests on anyone making a claim, be it positive or negative. i do agree that we shouldn't necessarily believe in everything we can't disprove though. it does seem like a slippery slope to me to say that once we believe in God due to lack of disproof then that means we have to believe in everything due to lack of disproof.

 

[phoenixthoth]

God can not be proven. No one can prove to you or anyone else that God does or does not exist. We experience God within ourselves and know God and know that he exists. It is beyond belief and beyond what is normally thought of as faith. Once God is experienced within ourselves there is no longer any need for proof.
The way this has happened to a number of us is through meditation and acceptance and asking while meditating.

god "existence" is dangerous
How can you trust your feelings, that "god" exists?
Generally speaking, human feelings can "cheat", right?
Say, you could had been "drugged" when you experienced "a connection with the god", isn't it so?

PREVIOUSLY people "needed" a god in order to survive (just "to keep together"), that is it.
For NOW people DO NOT NEED god.
Moreover, "idea of god" is DANGEROUS for human race.

Because of "whose god is better" arguing
(which cannot be solved because is based on irrational "feelings")
our poor mankind can commit suicide using NEWLY introduced weapons of mass destruction.

So, even IF "a god" exists, people MUST "prove" to themselves, that no any god exists and QUICKLY!

P.S.
"Morality" CAN be explained without references to any god, do you know that?

an age-old exchange not unlike the rest of this thread. in response to the second quoted message, "How can you trust your feelings, that "god" exists" in particular, do you believe that love exists? do you go around telling everyone who claims to be in love that they're not because love doesn't exist and is illogical and imaginary with the question "how can you trust your feelings?" let's take it a step further, then. how can you trust any observations, including observations in a science lab? however, perhaps love doesn't exist, or at least that many people who think they're in love are just confused. i might tell my daughter who has known a guy for 2 days and wants to get married that she's not in love. however, the number of "bona fide" instances of love leads me to suspect that love may exist. the other natural question is "how can you attribute God to whatever you're feeling?" this is a very good question and i don't have a good answer. all i can tell you is that if you ever felt it, you wouldn't ask it anymore.

nothing above (that i wrote) is intended to be a proof that God exists.